MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you agree with the S/H not contacting or returning the call from the L/H FAAA?????
Infantile is tthe petty politics from both sides but at least L/H is trying to talk with S/H.
I guess though that one of the MAM officers in the S/H office took the call and didn't tell anyone...
Infantile is tthe petty politics from both sides but at least L/H is trying to talk with S/H.
I guess though that one of the MAM officers in the S/H office took the call and didn't tell anyone...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MEL
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've taken me the wrong way.
Pathetic is their very public bitch slapping of each other, not the fact that lh did an about face, although that does raise an eyebrow, or that sh have had some hissy fit won't talk to them.
I don't know what the divisional flying agreement is, what that has to do with vr and casuals and i'm sure 99.9% of crew don't either. all i do know is that they should grow up and deal with their crap internally and not subject the rest of us to it.
Like i said before, blaming anyone other than our esteem pm for the casualisation of our workforces and the resulting affects that has had and is having on the rest of us is just infantile.
And for the record, i don't much care that mam is in the same room/office/building or carpark as the faaa, much less who is answering the faaa's phones and taking their messages.
Pathetic is their very public bitch slapping of each other, not the fact that lh did an about face, although that does raise an eyebrow, or that sh have had some hissy fit won't talk to them.
I don't know what the divisional flying agreement is, what that has to do with vr and casuals and i'm sure 99.9% of crew don't either. all i do know is that they should grow up and deal with their crap internally and not subject the rest of us to it.
Like i said before, blaming anyone other than our esteem pm for the casualisation of our workforces and the resulting affects that has had and is having on the rest of us is just infantile.
And for the record, i don't much care that mam is in the same room/office/building or carpark as the faaa, much less who is answering the faaa's phones and taking their messages.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne, oz
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galleyslag,
Not long after Ansett went bust the Moonee Ponds office was vacated by every one in it. The Ansett bust led to a huge hit on domestic FAAA incoming revenue and the rent was no longer viable until the financial situation improved.
I believe the Vic Branch was also operated from a private postal address for a long while until the finances were such that a commercial premises could be afforded. These were desperate times for the association , as well as the Ansett employees.
Lobe,
Point taken.
Cheers,
P
Not long after Ansett went bust the Moonee Ponds office was vacated by every one in it. The Ansett bust led to a huge hit on domestic FAAA incoming revenue and the rent was no longer viable until the financial situation improved.
I believe the Vic Branch was also operated from a private postal address for a long while until the finances were such that a commercial premises could be afforded. These were desperate times for the association , as well as the Ansett employees.
Lobe,
Point taken.
Cheers,
P
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas talking utter crap: union
By Peter Veness
April 16, 2007 06:26pm
A FRESH row has erupted between Qantas and staff with the long-haul flight attendants' union declaring the airline full of "utter crap".
Qantas executive John Borghetti today issued a statement attacking the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia (FAAA) international division chief Michael Mijatov for criticising the airline's system for hiring casual short-haul cabin crew.
"
I am surprised to see Michael Mijatov from the long-haul FAAA criticising the very arrangements agreed to by his union," Mr Borghetti said.
But Mr Mijatov bit back.
"It's utter crap," he said.
"I'm not criticising the short-haul agreement.
"We would be prepared to discuss casual employment here as well."
The comments from Qantas are likely to drive a further wedge between the domestic and international arms of the union which see each other as separate entities.
Mr Borghetti was forced to defend Qantas' hiring system after Fairfax reported that a former union boss was now making money hiring casual flight attendants for the airline.
All potential recruits are required to pay a $49 money order to Maurice Alexander Management when they apply for work.
Mr Borghetti said the arrangement was "in line with standard industry practice".
The $49 charge at the first interview was for a background security check while other charges, such as a medical, were standard across the industry.
He said casual short-haul cabin crew were paid higher wages in lieu of sick leave, annual leave and long-service leave.
Qantas flies about 2500 short-haul flights every week and Mr Borghetti said flexibility was essential.
"To do this efficiently requires considerable flexibility, which is why we have agreements in place with both FAAA divisions with regard to overseas bases, casual flight attendants and shared short-haul and long-haul flying," he said.
However, Mr Mijatov said he was worried Qantas would roll out similar recruitment processes across the group.
"Qantas has made 400 of our members redundant barely four months ago," Mr Mijatov said.
SOURCE :http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html
By Peter Veness
April 16, 2007 06:26pm
A FRESH row has erupted between Qantas and staff with the long-haul flight attendants' union declaring the airline full of "utter crap".
Qantas executive John Borghetti today issued a statement attacking the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia (FAAA) international division chief Michael Mijatov for criticising the airline's system for hiring casual short-haul cabin crew.
"
I am surprised to see Michael Mijatov from the long-haul FAAA criticising the very arrangements agreed to by his union," Mr Borghetti said.
But Mr Mijatov bit back.
"It's utter crap," he said.
"I'm not criticising the short-haul agreement.
"We would be prepared to discuss casual employment here as well."
The comments from Qantas are likely to drive a further wedge between the domestic and international arms of the union which see each other as separate entities.
Mr Borghetti was forced to defend Qantas' hiring system after Fairfax reported that a former union boss was now making money hiring casual flight attendants for the airline.
All potential recruits are required to pay a $49 money order to Maurice Alexander Management when they apply for work.
Mr Borghetti said the arrangement was "in line with standard industry practice".
The $49 charge at the first interview was for a background security check while other charges, such as a medical, were standard across the industry.
He said casual short-haul cabin crew were paid higher wages in lieu of sick leave, annual leave and long-service leave.
Qantas flies about 2500 short-haul flights every week and Mr Borghetti said flexibility was essential.
"To do this efficiently requires considerable flexibility, which is why we have agreements in place with both FAAA divisions with regard to overseas bases, casual flight attendants and shared short-haul and long-haul flying," he said.
However, Mr Mijatov said he was worried Qantas would roll out similar recruitment processes across the group.
"Qantas has made 400 of our members redundant barely four months ago," Mr Mijatov said.
SOURCE :http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by galleyslag
Did l/h have mam casuals or qf casuals who were eventually made permanent?
I flew with a guy just the other day who said he started as L/H casual.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF L/H did have casuals but they were employed through QF not MAM.At that stage if you worked longer than 11 months I think and they had to make you permanent.I remember a number of them going throught the exit interview process.
I don't know if it is true but on another thread there is a post that MAM are recruiting again.If this is the case it is disgusting but consistent with the attitude of the company to cabin crew.
I don't know if it is true but on another thread there is a post that MAM are recruiting again.If this is the case it is disgusting but consistent with the attitude of the company to cabin crew.
lowerlobe
I don't know whether MAM are recruiting at the moment or not, however several hundred MAM F/A's have been recruited since the beginning of this year. This has occurred despite the company managing an apparent surplus of crew in short haul.
I don't know whether MAM are recruiting at the moment or not, however several hundred MAM F/A's have been recruited since the beginning of this year. This has occurred despite the company managing an apparent surplus of crew in short haul.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be great if the government was changed at the next election and they changed the rules so that if you are a casual and worked for more than 12 months they had to make you a permanent employee....That would throw a spanner in the works for Darth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maurice
I am sure Maurice will manage by giving excess the flick well before any government changes are implemented.
I wonder how much of his revenue is generated by the $49 application fee and other incidentals?
They cannot be checking prospective employees very well considering the quality of staff they are hiring.
I wonder how much of his revenue is generated by the $49 application fee and other incidentals?
They cannot be checking prospective employees very well considering the quality of staff they are hiring.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MEL
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My MAM C mate spoke to a lawyer about being made permanent because of all the hours he was doing and was told he might have a case at law now but it would be for MAM to make him permanent not QF because he gets his hours of work and gets paid through them.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the problem with what MAM does really? . Its not his or the casuals fault that QF won't hire directly or give f/t jobs. MAM is just the puppet separating QF from what would otherwise be their legal obligation, to make those doing the same (or more) hours than the average f/timer, permanent. They tell him when and how many to bring onboard, they also have the final say on who gets the gig. No-one truly thinks he gets to call all the shots and just tell QF how many uniforms to have ready, do they ?
There has been plenty of plot thickening comments splashed around this week but surely even the most moderately intelligent of people understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Like it or hate it, its the law folks and until that changes for the better, nothing in our workplace is going to. Yes he's making a killing, but he's not the first and definately won't be the last !
Casuals are encouraged by virtue of the law, no smoke, no mirrors, no sub plots..... just the law. Blaming anyone else for this atrocity is just a waste of time. Its not MAM, its not the union, its quite simply the law.
There has been plenty of plot thickening comments splashed around this week but surely even the most moderately intelligent of people understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Like it or hate it, its the law folks and until that changes for the better, nothing in our workplace is going to. Yes he's making a killing, but he's not the first and definately won't be the last !
Casuals are encouraged by virtue of the law, no smoke, no mirrors, no sub plots..... just the law. Blaming anyone else for this atrocity is just a waste of time. Its not MAM, its not the union, its quite simply the law.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If say Peter Costello left the Libs and joined Labour the papers and everyone else would not be interested in it.....
It's not about the law although the government certainly helps those making these decisions,it is an ex union official supplying cheap labour which effectively downgrades the chances of full time employees.It is about a union which shares office space with that same person....mmmmmm
It's not about the law although the government certainly helps those making these decisions,it is an ex union official supplying cheap labour which effectively downgrades the chances of full time employees.It is about a union which shares office space with that same person....mmmmmm
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you suggesting that QF would not have as many casuals as they do, if it wasn't for MAM and sharing an office with the FAAA ? If so I'm sorry but thats ludicrous ! If it wasn't MAM it would be one of the other labour hire companies, like Adecco (I think thats who they use in NZ) and what the FAAA sharing an office has to do with it is beyond me.
The laws not only allow it, they actively encourage the use of casuals in EVERY workforce, the less guarantee of anything, the better. That's just one primary focus of our new laws. If it wasn't the players we have today, it would be their replacements. MAM get help when needed from the union, I know of a few who have, in fact I've called them myself to get help for a MAM kid, they were good with me and the kid.
And as for Cotello leaving the libs and joining the labour party, yes definately newsworthy, but we're not in Federal Politics here ! This is relatively small union who has an ex employee, covering his workers with an EBA (when he doesn't have to) and paying them decent T&C as CASUALS. Thats right CASUALS, because there are no full time jobs anymore and thats the harsh reality of the airline business in 2007.
The SH FAAA came out this week and said MAM have been sub letting the space off them since Ansett went down, but now that their in a better financial position, their getting something for themselves again. I have to say it sounded reasonable to me, have a read its sobering.
http://www.faaadomestic.org.au/news.asp?id=935
I know that won't go down well, being even remotely supportive of the SH FAAA on here, but they do have lots of supporters, for good reason.
The laws not only allow it, they actively encourage the use of casuals in EVERY workforce, the less guarantee of anything, the better. That's just one primary focus of our new laws. If it wasn't the players we have today, it would be their replacements. MAM get help when needed from the union, I know of a few who have, in fact I've called them myself to get help for a MAM kid, they were good with me and the kid.
And as for Cotello leaving the libs and joining the labour party, yes definately newsworthy, but we're not in Federal Politics here ! This is relatively small union who has an ex employee, covering his workers with an EBA (when he doesn't have to) and paying them decent T&C as CASUALS. Thats right CASUALS, because there are no full time jobs anymore and thats the harsh reality of the airline business in 2007.
The SH FAAA came out this week and said MAM have been sub letting the space off them since Ansett went down, but now that their in a better financial position, their getting something for themselves again. I have to say it sounded reasonable to me, have a read its sobering.
http://www.faaadomestic.org.au/news.asp?id=935
I know that won't go down well, being even remotely supportive of the SH FAAA on here, but they do have lots of supporters, for good reason.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still feel uneasy about the FAAA/MAM thing.
Why is our EBA so weak, I mean clause 11 sates a mutual mediator, not AIRC?
How could the FAAA allow qf to force contract A's sign over to B contract if they were to be considered for permanent?
Or 2005 allow Perth casuals to have NIL hours whilst they shipped casuals from the East Coast for months to do a fulltime roster?? That is unlawful.
Or how came the FAAA has allowed the EBA to be breached since the introduction of contract C?
Shouldn't the FAAA be persecuting the company when such events occur?
Shouldn't FAAA have capped casual hours? Some casuals are doing 140-160, despite being underpaid, guess what will be in S/H EBA at end of year. Higher hours, less pay!!
The FAAA are allowing casuals to undermine their "own" permanents. It is like they have no interest in the fact our misrepresentation effects the rest of the S/H employees.
Allow me to go on and say how offensive the FAAA's comeback was, the only reason why permenent QF enjoy "family Friendly" and "flexible" flying is at the cost of the casuals giving 20 days a month and their lousy representation.
The only reason why MA is no longer on FAAA as he learnt from his mate CC about the conflict/collusion.
I wish I could back to my ignorant bliss.
Why is our EBA so weak, I mean clause 11 sates a mutual mediator, not AIRC?
How could the FAAA allow qf to force contract A's sign over to B contract if they were to be considered for permanent?
Or 2005 allow Perth casuals to have NIL hours whilst they shipped casuals from the East Coast for months to do a fulltime roster?? That is unlawful.
Or how came the FAAA has allowed the EBA to be breached since the introduction of contract C?
Shouldn't the FAAA be persecuting the company when such events occur?
Shouldn't FAAA have capped casual hours? Some casuals are doing 140-160, despite being underpaid, guess what will be in S/H EBA at end of year. Higher hours, less pay!!
The FAAA are allowing casuals to undermine their "own" permanents. It is like they have no interest in the fact our misrepresentation effects the rest of the S/H employees.
Allow me to go on and say how offensive the FAAA's comeback was, the only reason why permenent QF enjoy "family Friendly" and "flexible" flying is at the cost of the casuals giving 20 days a month and their lousy representation.
The only reason why MA is no longer on FAAA as he learnt from his mate CC about the conflict/collusion.
I wish I could back to my ignorant bliss.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a friend of mine involved in a hire agency for executives did report to me some time ago out of interest.......an faaa exec. from ansett same person a director of the then newly set up flight force for ansett casuals ,the industrial relations dept., littigation and a conclusion of "step aside from one position or the other due to a conflict of interest"......all this from a google find so one would imagine that its not only public knowledge but also history correct casualvermin!!! or is it from this type of start that all the discussion is about? cheers gigs